How The Tribune Decides On Its Endorsements

November 05, 1990|By Douglas E. Kneeland.

Every election season people want to know why newspapers endorse candidates for office. Some ask why we feel obliged to recommend at all. Others couldn`t care less about the philosophy of it, but specifically wonder how we could be so stupid, or mean-spirited, as to oppose any of their favorites.

A lot of readers are curious about the process by which endorsement decisions are reached. And many are especially puzzled when newspapers support a lesser-of-two-evils candidate in races where we acknowledge the choices are uninspiring.

All good questions. With the elections scheduled Tuesday and this year`s endorsements pretty much a matter of record, readers and voters deserve some answers. So let`s give it a try.

The Chicago Tribune`s practices on endorsements are unusual, perhaps, but only in their breadth and depth. By comparison, few other large papers, if any, reach as far down in local races in publishing their choices-and small papers are not likely to endorse statewide in legislative races.

The Tribune, like most-but not all-American newspapers, feels an obligation to give voters its best advice on the people who seek public office just as it does to speak out on all manner of issues important to its readers. To some, there may appear to be arrogance in that. But there are roots to the long American tradition of political endorsements.

The Founding Fathers knew-perhaps more by instinct than by any certain wisdom-that an informed electorate was crucial to a successful democracy. And for that reason the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of the press, along with speech and the practice of religion.

You must understand the importance attached to those freedoms by those who made our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, at times confessed his own annoyance with the press. Nevertheless, it was he who said that given the choice of a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, he would take the latter.

Not everyone would agree. He may well have been the last politician to think that, let alone say it. Certainly those who seek, but fail to get, an endorsement for public office are not likely to share his sentiments.

Fortunately for all sides, Jefferson`s provocative hypothesis was never put to the test and we have both a free press and a free government. Given that happy state of affairs, American newspapers have always figured they had a mandate to serve the public`s right to know by reporting on the performance of office holders and the promises and qualifications of those who seek office.

From that point, it was a short step-and one that most took eagerly-to decide they had an equal obligation to use the knowledge they had gathered to help voters sort things out at election time.

That is essentially the reason the Tribune feels it has a responsibility to make endorsements. Which brings us to the procedure by which it decides who to support.

The Tribune`s editorial board-made up of the editor, the editorial page editor and her deputy, the public editor, editorial writers, the editor of this page and cartoonists-has the burden of determining the candidates the newspaper will recommend for election, subject to review by the publisher.

Preparations for the decision-making start well before the primary elections. All candidates in the races to be considered for editorial endorsement who can be reached are sent questionnaires about personal histories and positions on specific issues. Most, especially those who have no previous record in public office, are then asked to make an appointment to meet with at least one member of the editorial board to discuss in person their qualifications and what they would do if elected.

Editorial board members make visits Downstate and to suburban areas to interview some candidates who would find it difficult to get to Chicago. Incumbents whose records are well known may not be invited in, but if they request an audience they almost certainly will get one.

Before the primary election endorsements are made, the board meets and weighs the qualifications of competing candidates. The recommendations that are published emerge from those sessions, where considerable debate frequently takes place before a decision is reached.

After the primary, a similar procedure is initiated about three months before a November election. However, candidates who have been interviewed before the primary may not be rescheduled unless they are seeking a major local or statewide office.

The system-like most other things in this world-is imperfect. Some candidates don`t return their questionnaires or seek an interview. Many do, however, and their answers to the written questions and their performance during the interviews often are the deciding factors in endorsements.